Sustainability and policy - Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects - page 514

in 2003 by people in London and Paris, will be normal for the summer. Heatwaves
at that time will be that much warmer and their associated biological impacts greater
(Chapters 6 and 7).
On the 1000-year level we will see several metres of sea-level rise. Large parts of
Greenland will become ice-free. Year-round sea ice at the North Pole will have long
gone (in fact we will lose end-summer Arctic sea ice in just a few decades' time)
and we will see carbon cascade between various biospheric pools via the atmosphere,
which will maintain global temperatures even if the global economy has by then
switched away from fossil carbon. This will persist for many thousands of more
years unless some means of sequestering atmospheric carbon is found. Over this
longer timescale the oceans will rise scores of metres. All of Greenland and parts of
Antarctica will become ice-free.
As said, many thousands of years, let alone 1000 years, hardly figures in the
thinking of politicians or civil servants. Yet 1000 years, very nearly the time from the
Doomsday Book to the present, is in human terms just 40 generations!
As I have previously argued, if environmental scientists, or green lobbyists (two
quite distinct groups), wish to focus people's minds then they should learn from
biology (Cowie, 1998a). Here the biggest bio-psychological imperative is associated
with reproduction. Our bioclade (the sum total of life from a common primordial
nucleic acid ancestor to date) has had over 3.5 billion years (Chapter 3) of Darwinian
evolution dictating successful reproduction, enabling the selective passing on and
evolution of genes. We are therefore programmed to care for our offspring. The
intergenerational arguments of a climatically changed Earth, and the exhaustion of
cheap fossil carbon fuel over the coming decades, need to be brought to the fore.
Anyone born today will witness many of the climate change impacts discussed in this
topic and will almost certainly see the peak in consumption of global oil and gas as
well as witnessing their decline to scarcity. This is not a shock statement but one of
simple virtual certainty and something very pertinent to all parents.
Yet, if to help get the message across we recognise the biological imperative to
nurture offspring then equally we should recognise other biological instincts that
serve to counter moves to curb greenhouse gas emissions. While it is difficult on
moral grounds to expect fast-developing nations (such as China and India) with
low standards of living to forgo economic growth (and hence the energy needed to
drive such growth), recognition of biological imperatives that encourage profligate
resource consumption needs to be accepted. Affluent North Americans and Western
and Central Europeans consume energy (and fossil carbon) not for essentials (basic
warmth, clean water and so forth) but for luxuries (the SUV in an urban setting,
overly warm homes and such). From a biologist's perspective this too can be viewed
as part of the reproductive imperative and can be seen in many species. It is the driver
behind the spectacular tail-feather displays of male peafowl such as the blue peacock
( Pavo cristatus ) or the large antlers of male fallow deer ( Dama dama ): the examples
are legion. These signal to females that the males have the necessary genes to secure
resources for such displays and so are worthy mates. The problem is that it can seem
to be a never-ending race. As soon as one individual raises the stakes to a level above
those of his or her peers, so the peers are forced to raise their own stakes if they are
to compete successfully.